Mirror’s Edge analysis on Gamasutra
Basically, it promotes the view that we shouldn’t be treating games just as we treat other software in terms of human interface. Other software is meant to emphasize efficiency and clarity, whereas most games are constructed to specifically create instances of inablity (challenges). I think the article’s argument is that it’s quite alright if we use interface awkwardness to create these challenges (ie: have shooting be slow and difficult rather than deadly efficient) rather than just modifying the game world to create challenge (ie: have opponents be more intelligent, faster, etc.).
I can understand that that might irk many people, and of course there’s a balance to be found (as always), but I generally subscribe to that view as well. In the case of Mirror’s Edge, I can’t say I know too much as I’ve only played the brief demo, but I was (at least initially) happy to find that gun combat was intentionally frowned upon by the designers. I think Halo, Half Life, Crysis, etc. give us a pretty exaggerated image of what handling a firearm is like; human’s aren’t robots that can maintain a steady line of fire as they run and jump and twist about. Not that my experience with guns is very extensive either, but the time I have spent with them tells me that they’re heavy, they give a heck of a kick and boom, and they certainly feel very little like you’d expect if you only play games. So if Mirror’s Edge incorporates this bit of reality into its design at the expense of simulated interface efficiency, sounds good to me!
Now, of course, whether or not that leads to frustrating gameplay in the actual implementation, I couldn’t say. The game certainly better offer a viable player alternative to weapons combat if it’s going it away.
